Talk:Swiftboating

Where does the term "swiftboating" come from?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was result of discussion is that the article should say that the term comes from Democrats. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Should the article say that the term "swiftboating" comes from Democrats, or from the Left, or none of these? Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * "Democrats". That the Democrats are the Left, then or now, is a matter of judgment. But that the Democrats used it first is a rather obvious matter of fact, so obvious it need just be mentioned. I think it is in the process of becoming more general, but that's hard to determine.  DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree with DGG. That is what the sources cited previously state.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When I looked for "first use" a year ago I couldn't find anything so I'm more sure what we can say here.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The references cited say otherwise. Here they are again:
 * I doubt that a reliable source will be found that identifies the source of the term. It's often the case with a neologism like this that a few people independently come up with similar terms, and one variation comes to dominate public discussion. While it's likely that the term "comes from Democrats", it is also likely that it was invented by a journalist with no known political leaning (and was then enthusiastically adopted by Democrats). One of the refs (BBC Glossary: US elections) says "Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths." However that is just a quick overview for BBC readers, and cannot be regarded as a reliable authority on the origin of the term. If a reliable source identifies the origin, of course the article should include that, but it would be misleading for the article to suggest that swiftboating is a term "used by Democrats" because non-Democrat reliable sources also use that term (example: '"Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears' ). Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this analysis. The term likely was used simultaneously by unaligned journalists rather than just Democratic Party ones. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating.""http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/17/nation/na-kerry17


 * Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths.  BBC Glossary: US elections BBC News, US & Canada url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15730790

This is now the third time I have placed these sources on this discussion page, and yet those editors that do not wish to make any change in the wording of the article still seem to be unaware of them. I find that very odd, and am hard pressed to explain it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Third time? Then this must be the third time you get asked to please propose your new text for the article, so that we may review and discuss it. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, and also the third time answered.
 * We could say that Swiftboating is a term created by Democrats to describe the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to undermine the presidential campaign of John Kerry.


 * Placed in the article, the opening paragraph could read like this:


 * The word swiftboating is an American neologism created by Democrats to describe the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to undermine the presidential campaign of John Kerry. It is pejorative, inferring an unfair or untrue political attack.  The term has entered the general public vernacular and has come to mean any smear campaign or campaign intended to undermine a candidate.
 * Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason, advocates for a point of view rarely engage in the discussion (by considering what was said, and responding appropriately)—instead, we just see repetitions of a core statement. Just above, I explained about the BBC glossary, and why " created by Democrats" is totally inappropriate because no one knows who created the term. I also explained that unduly emphasizing "" used by Democrats" would be misleading. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed since you essentially agreed that nothing further was required. I can see now that I must endeavor to make it perfectly clear why the  statement of yours above argues for a change.   You state "While it's likely that the term "comes from Democrats", it is also likely that it was invented by a journalist with no known political leaning (and was then enthusiastically adopted by Democrats)."  Either way, invented by Democrats or enthusiastically adopted by Democrats,  supports essentially the same narrative.  You are now suggesting that since it is not known precisely which individual used the term first, it could have been anybody of any persuasion, therefor no information about the use of the term should be conveyed.  This is clearly false.  One's inability to place the term on a particular individual does not mean there should be no comment on the broad use of the term by Democrats.   We are speaking of the origination of the term, so I assume you can conclude on your own why a New York Times article from 2008 would not make a compelling counter-argument.
 * The BBC source is clear in its identification of Democrats as the party who gave the term its broad use. Likewise the LA Times piece. You suggest that the BBC in this instance should not be considered reliable enough to support such a statement,  you have no response on the LA Times piece, you suggest no other group or party as a likely candidate for the origination, nor do you provide any references that would support some alternative theory to the origination of the term.  Is that correct? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re the proposed text. We are talking about a neologism here and they emerge.  The BBC reference is a glossary of terms used in the election, in that context "given by ..." does not mean created by.  Its also one paragraph not a considered article.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are speaking of a neologism. The emergence of the term is the thing that we are speaking of here.  Excellent.  In this case the word emerged in a great hurry.  In fact, the word was a part of a political argument, and its creation had a purpose.  The article as it now stands ignores this important history of the word.  The phrase “given by” in the BBC text confers not only origination, but ownership.  The BBC source is interesting as it is a reference currently cited by the editors and which no one had a problem with, until now.   It is not the only source that places the word at the footsteps of the Democrats, rather it is one of several.  For your edification, here is another to go with those already cited above:


 * Democratic candidates and their partisans in the blogosphere use this word to mean smearing their candidates for public office with lies and innuendo. (Henry P. Wickham, Jr. April 20, 2008 The American Thinker) http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/redefining_swiftboating_and_re.html


 * Almost as compelling as the evidence that shows the derivation to have been from Democrats is the lack of evidence of any competing claim to origination. Nothing has been offered by any of the editors that would like to avoid mentioning the history of the term.  Taken together, there is little choice but to amend the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The BBC Glossary confers origination and ownership? No, it certainly does not. It does not indicate origination or ownership. In addition, it does not indicate any relevance between party affiliation and the coining of the word. The word was coined as a shorthand term to represent the tactics used by a political group during a presidential campaign. The political affiliation of the very first person to use the term "swiftboating" as a verb to describe "smear campaigning" is irrelevant, and given the roughly equal split between lefties and righties in the U.S. political environment, it is equally likely to have been first used by either faction. Holding the "I personally still don't think the campaign was a smear campaign" opinion ≠ basis for NPOV dispute over the meaning of "swiftboating". Let's keep this factual, please.


 * When pressed for reliable sources to refute the existing reliable sources of factual assertion, Jake offers an opinion piece that cites the book by the SBVT website operator as it's proof. Now you, when similarily pressed, offer an opinion piece that cites the book by the SBVT website operator as proof.  Based on that, you say there is little choice to amend the article?  Good one.  Please read: WP:NOTRELIABLE, then finally provide the requested reliable sources supporting your assertions.  Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources have been provided to support my position. None have been provided with a contrary view. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Try reading what other editors have said about your "sources" and respond to those arguments please. And per the comment below be aware than canvassing is not permitted on wikipedia, it can get you blocked and/or topic banned.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read their comments and do not find them compelling. You seem to suggest that there is no evidence to suggest that the phrase originated from the left, or Democrats specifically.  Evidence provided you claim is unreliable, though the reason why varies.  I have yet to see the reason for the dismissal of the LA Times piece.  Perhaps I missed it.  The point is to try to improve the article.  I do not see any interest in that goal among the four of you that continue to comment here.  The only editor here not previously a part of the discussion is this DGG, whom JakeInJoisey seems to have invited.  If I have made an error than you are free to report me, but that does not improve the article nor does it help your position.  Throughout I would say the four of you have been rather testy, condescending and argumentative.  This is fine by me, but it does make it seem odd to see you now turn and play the victim.  Again, you are welcome to report whatever infraction you have found me guilty of.  Certainly, the whole of the discussion and  comments should be reviewed.  There is nothing here I feel concerned about.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your judgement of what is or is not compelling doesn't count, you have to counter the arguments made.  The LA Times piece says that the Democrats have come to use the term and that is about it.  I can't see how it supports an NPOV label, it would support a statement that the issue was controversial, but that is not disputed.  You have canvassed here and here but you have now been warned.  Please stop it or yes it will be reported.  Whether they involve themselves or not is not relevant.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The same should can said of your judgment. A case has been made, you have failed to refute it.  We are going in circles here.  If you have anything new to offer I would be happy to review it.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and would you mind not WP:CANVASSING editors who have previously pushed similar pov memes to join in? Thanks again, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ...the existing reliable sources of factual assertion...
 * Facts not in evidence. Oh, it's quite "factual", alright, that smear "assertions" have been offered and that is a stipulation easily made. But are they "assertions of opinion" or "assertions of fact"?  There's the rub...and the first question to be resolved.  JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered above, and never refuted: assertion of fact. Next question?  Since we are lacking a legitimate concern supporting the NPOV tag, I see no reason for it to stay on the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Democrats (qualified) - As the only option available, though '"Something Else"' would be my option of choice had I been afforded the choice. Assuming that "comes from" refers to employment of the assertion as identified in WP:RS sourcing, "Democrats" are specified in three of those sources. That's not to suggest, however, that the article (based solely on those 3 sources) could legitimately state or imply that it is ONLY "Democrats" who employ the appellation since it has assuredly been used, albeit perhaps rarely, by someone other than a "Democrat". For the purposes of this article, "...employed predominantly by those critical of the SVPT campaign" would be, IMHO, a legitimate and NPOV presentation of this content.  All that being said, if by "comes from" you are referring specifically to the "genesis" of the eponym (and I believe it IS an "eponym" based upon some recent education in that regard), I believe that "those critical of the SVPT campaign" is about as specific as one can (or needs to) get as well.  JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those opposed to it is what would be correct. Not all Democrats used the term "smear" and thus to ascribe it to Democrats qua Democrats is wrong.  It was, and remains, a statement of opinion, and thus per WP policy should be so ascribed tothose holding that opinion, and cied to them. Collect (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave it out. Ascribing the word "swiftboating" to either the Democrats or the left introduces a political POV and (as stated above), there's no consensus of RS as to its origin. Miniapolis (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfC text is vague in its use of the phrase "comes from" and, therefore, will elicit responses based upon whatever interpretation an individual attributes to it. "Comes from" can be legitimately interpreted as referring to either "genesis" or "use". JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation "quote" parameter
It is my understanding that the purpose of the "quote" parameter within citation templates is to facilitate locating the citation source should a link fail, not to cherry-pick text one might deem relevant to the text cited or that might support a particular POV. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken in your understanding. Here is the text from the template documentation page: "quote: Relevant text quoted from the source." FurrySings (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reference...and education. My recollection was from quite some time ago involving resolution of a dispute (I do not recall being a party to) as to appropriate text and length of text to be incorporated into a citation. Since that experience, I've generally employed a methodology of citing a minimal amount of the first sentence in constructing NPOV citations.  I'm not sure that my erroneous understanding of the rationale isn't a more prudent approach, but I'll now approach this from a new perspective. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote parameter can help in a number of ways. One of them is to supply relevant text. I think that it is misused if made to hold a quote that does not meet Wikipedia standards for neutral tone. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Discredited?
The notion that the ads against Kerry have been, according to this entry, "discredited", is total garbage. The claims dealing with whether Kerry actually earned his medals ended up being secondary to the attacks on his anti-war activities after his three month tour in Vietnam. That Kerry threw away his medals at a war protest, compared American soldiers to Genghis Khan and asserted US troops were routinely committing war crimes are actions that are a matter of public record and are absolutely indisputable. Kerry's political career arose from these anti-war activities. None of the Swiftboat claims regarding these activities have been "discredited" and simply making a blanket statement that all the ads are untrue, which is what is being done in this entry, is pure bullshit. This entry is insanely one-sided nonsense. 74.134.145.218 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would have to agree with that assessment. This article could be much improved. Plot Spoiler (talk)

It's not even close to an objective fact that the campaign of SBVT was 'discredited' as the article claims. This shows the pervasive leftist bias of many articles dealing with contentious issues in American politics. There is not a good faith effort to present the controversy (or term) with NPV, rather there is a concerted effort to shape the article into a pointed attack on the conservative viewpoint. This article is an example of that, as is the article on "Death Panels". Attempts to rectify these results in leftists using their institutional power at Wikipedia to fix the debate into support of leftist orthodoxy.

It is unfortunate because it makes Wikipedia much less useful, that it can not even permit discussion of one side of a huge debate. According to Wiki editor "death panels" are a myth, an "swift boating" is discredited. No alternate views will be permitted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The political view taken by the left is pushed forward in the article, that is clear to see, but that is the point of view taken by the preponderance of the media. To present an alternative you would have to have reliable sources that could be used to defend such a position.  Some exist, (for example the LA Times) and some effort has been previously made to include them, but the group of editors that tend to control the page dismissed them. Even sources used in the article to defend a position they approve, such as the BBC Glossary of US Political Terms, is rejected when it is pointed out the same source also asserts a point of which they do not approve. The problem with the editors being inflexible is that the article itself is reduced to a political tract, and the credibility of wikipedia as a whole is called into question. I don't like the phrasing in the article as it distorts the reality and totally mis-characterizes the veterans involved, but the bottom line is in order to change the article you would have to find a number of "reliable sources" supporting the SBVT position from a media which itself is partisan and which went out of its way to attempt to marginalize the Swifties and the POWs. It's a tall order. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is labeled 'Controversial' the Origin section of the article really needs a reference to what allegations were made and how they were discredited. I'm no Wikipedia contributor, but it seems to me that this article does not live up to the usual standard of not making assertions without specific references. (e.g. "many people think that A is unfounded". What people? And how do they think it's unfounded?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.149.164 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. This article is about the word: Swiftboating. If you want detailed information about the group that made the allegations, what allegations were made, and the controversy generated when their claims were debunked and the members revealed as political hacks, then you'll need to click on the links to those articles for that information. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Swiftboating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsweek.com/id/55728/output/print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)